Doug wrote:
> On 30 Aug, 12:00, John Wright
pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 26 Aug, 01:11, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Aug, 12:25, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>> ....
>>>>>> If, on the other hand, you are referring to the airport and the Kyoto
>>>>>> Protocol, a number of the original advisors on the protocol have said
>>>>>> that,
>>>>>> if they had known then what they know now, the Kyoto Protocol would never
>>>>>> have existed.
>>>>> Nevertheless there is now broad international agreement on reducing
>>>>> pollution, which Heathrow expansion contravenes.
>>>> The agreement, which is based on what increasing appears to be bad science,
>>>> is to reduce CO2 emissions. How the government goes about that is its own
>>>> business and nothing in the agreement precludes expanding airports. Indeed,
>>>> expanding an airport may be an excellent way to reduce CO2 emissions. Few
>>>> airports can accomodate the Airbus A380 without expansion, but in a fairly
>>>> modest 525 seat configuration (it can seat over 800) it is said to achieve
>>>> 75 gms CO2 per passenger Km, compared to around 95 gm CO2 per passenger km
>>>> for a 747.
>>> Which is more than offset by the increased air travel that the
>>> expansion will bring. So the government is not sticking to its
>>> agreement.
>>>> BTW on the subject of CO2 emissions, you haven't given your explaination of
>>>> why, despite CO2 level having risen by 4%% since 1998, there has been no
>>>> global warming in that decade and the global average tempeartures actually
>>>> dropped towards the end of it.
>>> Because your unsourced claim is wrong.
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Digging up bodies without a licence from the Home Secretary is illegal
>>>>>> under
>>>>>> Statute Law,. Digging them up without permission from the Church is
>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>> under Canon Law and digging them up without the permission of the
>>>>>> relatives
>>>>>> is illegal under Common Law. Blackmail is illegal under both Statute and
>>>>>> Common Law. As for the ethics, only a few, very disturbed, individuals
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> agree with your views on that.
>>>>> So how come torturing animals is not illegal?
>>>> It is. However, what you like to emotively term torture is not, for very
>>>> good reasons. The law and most rational people accept that there are
>>>> occasions when experiments on animals have to be carried out for the greater
>>>> good of mankind. Therefore, in the UK, such experimentation is strictly
>>>> regulated to minimise any suffering.
>>> There are many animal rights people who would disagree with you and
>>> have the evidence to prove it. There is very uneven monitoring of
>>> animal labs, almost certainly because of commercial pressures. Also
>>> the science of animal testing is questionable, due to major genetic
>>> differences between species, hence thalidomide and similar cock-ups.
>> If you knew the truth about thalidomide you wouldn't say that. Chemie
>> Grunenthal claimed they had done animal tests. They had not. This is the
>> main thing that brought in the testing of pharmaceuticals on animals.
>>
>> Thalidomide is one of the arguments for animal testing not the other way
>> around. Look up Francis Kelsey on that one. She was the FDA staff person
>> who prevented thalidomide being given approval in the USA.
>>
> You are wrong, as usual.
>
> The introduction of mandatory animal testing happened to coincide with
> Thalidomide testing. Also, Thalidomide is just one of many examples
> where animal testing has failed to predict harm to humans.
>
> "...Was thalidomide tested on pregnant animals before marketing? In
> all likelihood, yes (see Dark Remedy: The Impact of Thalidomide and
> its Revival as a Vital Medicine by Trent Stephens & Rock Brynner.
> Perseus: 2001). Specific teratogenicity testing may or may not have
> been done, but general animal tests certainly were. Roald Hoffmann
> writes;
"In all likelihood" - is that positive proof one way or the other? I
think not.
> “Indeed animal testing for teratogenicity of new drugs was routine in
> the major pharmaceutical companies.
But not mandated until 1962.
> Hoffmann-LaRoche’s Roche
> Laboratories published a major reproductive-system study of its
> Librium in 1959. Wallace Laboratories did so for Miltown in 1954. Both
> incidents antedate the thalidomide story.” (Roald Hoffmann, The Same
> And Not The Same, Columbia University Press 1995 p136)..."
>
> and
>
> "...Thalidomide, recently re approved by the FDA, is a classic
> example. During the lengthy trial of the manufacturers in 1970,
> numerous court witnesses, all animal experimenters, stated under oath
> that the results of animal experiments are never 100 per cent valid
> for human beings. However, because the manufacturers performed the
> required animal safety tests, and because these tests did not show any
> evidence of danger, the manufacturers of thalidomide were found not
> guilty by the court of consciously making a harmful drug..."
And what are the other main side-effects of Thalidomide then? I see you
don't mention any.
--
John Wright
"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?
You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin
